The words exchanged by Russian and the US foreign ministers at the Security Council clearly indicate that each superpower country lives in a separate world with completely dissimilar objectives in Syria.

In the US Obama is astutely drawing up its strategy in Syria to divide the Levant following the path and policy of the George W. Bush administration and its mantra of “a new Middle East order”, but from a different angle. What spoils the implementation of the US policy is the arrival of Russia with all its military apparatus forcing only a delay on the inevitable partition plan of Syria.

From talking to the many contacts I enjoy among the various decision makers in Syria of all parties involved and allies of Damascus, it is clear that Russia accepts – although Damascus won’t declare it – the control over the “useful Syria” (unless unforeseen elements intervene) pushing Russia and Iran to inject innumerable ground forces ready to face any other country, especially the US, only if the aim is stopping the ongoing partition process. The alternative would have been to accept a fait accompli and control the reconquered territory, consolidate it, freezing the military situation for many years to come.

To the details and the field:

The US and Russia agreed on a seven days cease-fire during which humanitarian convoys would be allowed into besieged areas by both the belligerents. It was also agreed that the US vetted rebel groups would detached themselves from classified terrorist groups, i.e. al-Qaeda (Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), Jund al-Aqsa and “the Islamic state” (ISIS). Simultaneously, all parties around the Aleppo Castello road will pull out heavy artilleries and fighters by 1000 to 3500 meters, allowing humanitarian control under the supervision of the Russian forces. And finally, both Russia and the US agreed to form a joint operations room, exchanging intelligence on disavowed terrorist disagreed groups, carrying out coordinated attacks against these. In exchange, the Syrian Air Force will be grounded.

But what happened and why did the agreement failed?

1 – It is almost impossible to secure a seven consecutive day total cease-fire on all fronts without a breach. Al-Qaeda, excluded from the ceasefire deal, has no interest in seeing it working. Its forces, along with US vetted group of Ahrar al-Sham and Beit al-Maqdes attacked the Syrian forces south of Syria, at al Hader, supported by the Israeli Air Force. Twenty-one artillery positions were destroyed by the Israel Air Force hours before the attack along the Golan border.

2. More than 23 groups and organisations, including Jihadist groups, other so-called “moderate rebels” and US vetted and financed groups rejected the ceasefire and announced they would not separate from those designated as terrorists by their sponsors: the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. Therefore, military collaboration between the US and Russia is highly unlikely in Syria any time in the near future.

3 – Washington and its allies attacked for the first time the Syrian Army forces stationed at the strategic al-Sanouf – Mount of Tharda, (facing ISIS) for the first time. The position attacked (7-8 km from the military airport) is the first line of defense protecting the Deir-ezzour airport, an umbilical cord for the military and civilians besieged in the city for a long time. This bombing resulted in: the death of 83 officers and soldiers and dozens of wounded, but above all, the loss of the Tharda II strategic position to ISIS whose forces attacked on the same day and managed to gain control. In fact, ISIS brought down a jet the day after, in a effort to support the Syrian Army ground forces in recovering this same position from ISIS. Now, the Syrian forces can only supply the force defending the city and the civilians only by helicopter and during the night.

Yes, its is true, the US recognised and officially apologised for the so-called “mistake”, said sorry and declared itself ready to “compensate the Syrian government for the losses”. This is an important step of recognition by Washington to the government of Damascus. But the question remains: why on earth did the US and coalition allies decided to offer air support, for the first time in five and a half years of war, to the besieged Syrian Army and the city of Deir-ezzour, and committing such a catastrophic strategic mistake? This question remains unanswered by the US and those members of coalition who supported the US bombing.

Nevertheless, decision-makers have a different view of the event. No-one believes the US “mistake” or story of the event. The loss of Jabal Tharda II was not followed by a correction of the mistake. The US and coalition jets did not return the next day to bomb ISIS. The real message behind the attack – as explained by my sources – is the advance of the Iraqi forces toward Jazirat al-Anbar, Baghdadi and Jazirat Hit, coming closer to their next target in ‘Ana, Rawa, in order to reach al-Qaim on the Iraqi-Syrian borders. If the Iraqi forces reached the border, ISIS would be caught between the two fires of Iraq and the Syrian forces, allowing a possible breach from al-Qaem and Albu Kamal toward Deir-ezzour. That would close any ISIS supply line from Iraq toward Raqqah, via Deir-ezzour and al-Badiyah.

Damascus forces and its allies have no intention of heading toward Raqqah, the ISIS stronghold. Those in power and on high ranking officers on the ground have the same response: “whoever wants to go to Raqqah and attack ISIS is most welcome. It is not our intention to take back Raqqah anytime soon”.

Russian, Syria and its allies strongly believe that the US is not in alliance with ISIS. Nevertheless, the Americans behave with ISIS like a shepherds with their sheep, rolling a stone towards a group off animals so as to push these towards the left or the right and force the entire group to head in the desired direction. Take the example of the first ceasefire established between Russia and the US: when the Syrian Army headed, after Palmyra, toward al-Tabaqa, three divisions of the Army were invested in the attack, closing up on ISIS and at Tabaqa airport, all this during an agreed ceasefire. Suddenly, a new front was initiated by rebels and jihadists (financed and armed by US allies in the Middle East) around Aleppo and in rural Homs, breaking this ceasefire and forcing the Army to suspend its attack. It pull out its forces and headed towards more vital fronts. ISIS was delighted and relived on that front.

Decision makers believe, rightly or wrongly, that ISIS should overpower the Syrian Army and its allies in Deir-ezzour, and take control of the city to prevent the Iraqis from supporting the Syrian regular forces and their allies. Moreover, if ISIS took control of Deir-ezzour, the US and allies would attack ISIS, with the consent of the world, and would recover Deir-ezzour and Raqqah afterwards, all this under the heading of “combatting Terrorism”. That would permit the partition of northern of Syria.

4. Russia realised that the US was trying to gain time during the second ceasefire, so as to take the glory of being the provider of “humanitarian aids” gaining political kudos for supporting the besieged civilians of Syria. Whereas Russia is looking, in the western eyes, as if it is incapable of managing the balance between the military and the political-humanitarian aspects of an ongoing war.Russia is today aware that the US wants to score points without giving anything in exchange, either on the political arena or on the ground, and is exerting no influence over its allies to split from those the US consider terrorists.

Thus, in the final stage of what was indeed perceived as a comedy and not a ceasefire, the humanitarian convoy was hit in rebel-controlled area close to Aleppo. The US managed to salve public opinion by saying sorry for the killing of 83 soldiers and officers and wounding 100 more and for offering on a golden plate a strategic position to ISIS! Russia showed exasperation and refused to play the game. Secretary John Kerry looked victorious during his speech at the UN council and everybody forgot about the allegedly mistaken, the gift to ISIS, the sudden presence of the US and coalition forces close to Deir-ezzour airport, the non-withdrawal of jihadist and rebels from the Castello Road as had been agreed. The communiqué of the 23 groups committed to distance themselves from Al-Qaeda and the jihadists and the attention was directed towards the “atrocity and inhuman bombing of a humanitarian convoy”.

Damascus allies ask the following question: “What makes Russia give the US concessions without anything in return, gaining time for rebels and jihadists to regroup? and bearing in mind that Al-Qaeda is a sporadic enemy of the US, outside of Syria.

5. According to high-ranking sources, the objective today is to control “useful Syria”. This is Latakia, Tartus, Homs, Hama, Aleppo and Damascus. Decision makers would accept the loss of oil and important agriculture in the north to the US and to the Kurds. There is oil at the coast and in the water opposite Latakia. Turkey is looking after its interests in the north, but most unlikely will face insurgency on the longer term. As long as Turkey respects the deal and does not approach the Syrian Army front, the situation will remain under control. Otherwise, Russia will be forced to respond to any Turkish push outside Syrian Army territory.

According to sources, Russia will not prevent the Syrian Air Force from striking its enemies and won’t be grounded (as Secretary Kerry has suggested would happen) as long as the Syrian opposition and the jihadists are in a row and a common position. It seems that Russia will not accept anymore a free of charge ceasefire and will resume the military operation around Aleppo. The Russian Kuznetsov aircraft carrier will be soon opposite the Syrian coasts. The Kremlin ordered one of its best and most advanced aircraft to spy over Syria and is ready to use its strategic Kalibr missiles in the coming round of violence expected to resume soon. Russia will use Kalibr to surprise the US and avoid informing it (which they should do according to the regulated airspace agreement) of its objective and targets. To conclude, the level of mistrust between the two superpowers has reached its highest level so far.

US Secretary of State Kerry says at the UN Security Council “Al Qaeda is our enemy”. Russia is asking: “What did you do against your enemy except supply it indirectly with weapons, allowing men and finances to reach it, and accepting that your vetted groups to join it in the same trenches?”. Damascus believes that any new US administration, whoever the next president will be, will avoid starting a direct war against Russia in Syria. The war will remain a war between proxies on both sides. Hillary Clinton, if she becomes president, understands that the Kremlin is determined to protect its interests in the Levant; and that the war in Syria concerns Russia directly because it demonstrates success or failure in the Middle East. The US will do its best to see Russia and Iran drown in Syria and will not accept that the US administration has failed to reach its goal. The only possibility is to divide Syria (like Berlin in the second World War) because nobody is allowed to win. The partition would create a northern-eastern part for the US proxies, and an western-Middle-southern part where Damascus and its allies will have to continue dealing with the jihadists and the insurgency and where a lack of stability will prevail.

Russia – who believes this is what the US is planning – is fully aware of the complexity of this war. But is it by the same token acknowledging and accepting the US’s statecraft and policy towards the jihadists in Syria? Only time will tell.

Pepe Escobar in an op ed on RT.com also stated that US strategists intended to ‘balkanize’
Syria, though his take on the denouement was critical of that end. In the article, the author here writes that the US proxies would end up with a ‘western’ part of Syria, and the Syrian government an eastern part replete with left over Islamic jihadi et al. I don’t see that. Raqqa
is northeastern where ISIS is still ensconced, whereas Damascus, Homs, Latakia et al are
more western, so it appears that if balkanization were fated by US domination (which doesn’t
seem to comport with reality on the ground), then the government would have the western
part and the rebels et al the northeastern, maybe southern areas? In any event, the US from 1991 or even before (1979) has made an unadulterated abomination of the Middle East, Iraq,
Libya, Syria, Yemen, and beyond, revolting to very humanity. US is all moral turpitude, and
one can get a good picture of this history since WWII by reading William Blum, James Risen,
John Perkins and other authors of the CIA and US foreign policy since WWII.

Published by Elijah J Magnier

Veteran War Zone Correspondent and Senior Political Risk Analyst with over 35 years' experience covering the Middle East and acquiring in-depth experience, robust contacts and political knowledge in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and Syria. Specialised in terrorism and counter-terrorism, intelligence, political assessments, strategic planning and thorough insight in political networks in the region.
Covered on the ground the Israeli invasion to Lebanon (1st war 1982), the Iraq-Iran war, the Lebanese civil war, the Gulf war (1991), the war in the former Yugoslavia (1992-1996), the US invasion to Iraq (2003 to date), the second war in Lebanon (2006), the war in Libya and Syria (2011 to date). Lived for many years in Lebanon, Bosnia, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria.
View all posts by Elijah J Magnier